This from the wires:<br><br>"Some seriously ill melanoma patients were left virtually free of disease after researchers injected them with billions of laboratory-grown white blood cells that attacked and shrank their skin cancer tumors, National Institutes of Health researchers say. <br><br>"In a study appearing Friday in the journal Science, a team led by Dr. Steven A. Rosenberg of the National Cancer Institute reports using amplified lymphocytes -- the body's white blood cells -- to attack melanoma tumors in 13 patients. Ten of those patients are still alive, four are 'virtually cancer free' and two others have experienced 'substantial' shrinkage of their tumors, the researcher said."<br><br>Great wits are sure to madness near allied.--John Dryden, "Absalom and Achitophel"

Forgive me if this sounds callous and/or heartless but... all these treatments and cures are upsetting the balance of nature. The population of this rapidly diminishing planet is out of control. We have third world countries whose populations are growing at a rampant rate... some of these countries are quickly becoming the biggest polluters of the environment due to their lack of monitoring and policing of their caustic output.<br><br>And here we are... wanting to cure EVERY ailment and save EVERY life... no matter how pitiful that life might be.<br><br>If I am stricken with a life threatening disease or affliction, I've made myself a solemn promise to let nature take it's course.<br><br>expecting to get flamed - and die a "natural" death<br><br>[color:red]Alec</font color=red>

On one hand I agree with you Alec. We are fooling around with mother nature's balance. But having a recent cancer scare (and I'm not out of the woods yet) I'm not sure whether I would be able to say no to treatment, specially if it was some painless gene therapy. When it comes to my child I know that my reaction would be to do what ever it takes to let my loved one live. If we're talking about a living vegetable then that is something different. I say pull the plug.<br><br><br><br>

My wife and I are both cancer research scientists, and I'll agree that this is an interesting finding, but not terribly exciting. This is a another form of 'immunotherapy', a field has has been around for about 15 years and has always been considered to have tremendous promise. However, in every case it hasn't lived up to its potential. Now, that doesn't mean it isn't worth pursuing, but I have a general feeling of cynicism about reports like this. Progression in science is always at a crawl except for occasional huge leaps and bounds - this is unlikely to be even a hop.<br><br>

in your model, you assume man cannot use what nature has given us to better ourselves. for instance, should you live in a house since nature didn't provide it for you -- many people would die without shelter provided by humans, especially in winter? do you eat food that has been processed? do you cook your meat -- because it doesn't come that way from the cow? bunches more people would die eating raw meat. are your veggies protected from disease by using pesticides? withoutt using combines, farmers couldn't produce nearly enough food for everyone and many more people would die off. do you ever take medication for an illness? do you ever visit the doctor for a regular checkup? why? at some point, you have made a decision to use what other humans can provide for you as being part of a society, yet you want to selectively reject other benefits of being a member of society. <br><br>i think it's human nature to strive for a higher quality of life individually and as a society. that drive to improve and be happy comes from nature. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>

Good points, I don't know if any of you have read the books by Daniel Quinn called Ishmael and The Story of B, but he delves very deep into this philosophy. Regardless of whether you agree with his points of view in the books or not is not really relevant; they will get you thinking about things differently. I would recommend anyone to read them.<br><br>But, I think Alec's main point was not quality of life and the technological aspect of civilization as whole, but rather the threat of overpopulation and how technology is a contributor to that (am I right?). My reply to that, specifically, is that technology is not to blame for overpopulation per se. Rather, the lack of education and the appropriate measures needed to control population growth are not being used at the personal level or the governmental level. While population woes in Africa vs. say, China, are probably the result of different sociological reasons, both can be brought under control, really.<br><br>-------<br><br>I believe the above is fact, but just a question based on my personal opinions: I do not have children (yet), but I certainly see the joy they bring to others. However, in western society, what is the point of having multiple children (three or more)? This, I think is a big part of the problem. There is a misconception that raising a large family only places a burden upon you and your spouse, however the burden also extends to your community, the state, and society. "We" pay for them to go to school, to take their trash to the ever shrinking landfill, occupational insurance premiums have to go up to take care of larger families; the list goes on. In fact, in this country, you actually get paid to have more children in the form of tax breaks. Now THAT is baffling (cue the flame here).<br><br>I hope that doesn't offend too many people. A couple of kids is wonderful, but believe me, I know all about big families... I'm mormon<br><br>

haven't read the book, but i may look into it.<br><br>the threat of overpopulation should be of concern to us all. i don't know the solutions, but personally we've had 2 children and we're all done. <br><br>china has a limit on the number of children that can be had by any family without paying huge taxes. perhaps this isn't such a bad concept. you want more kids then pay us bunches more money and we'll call it good. certainly india is growing very, very, very rapidly and i see no relief in sight. i think it's hard for those of us in the west to recognize overpopulation as a problem when we aren't experiencing it here. dubya cut funding from that US that was supplying contraceptives in third world nations, so i am sure our current administration does not recognize the problem internationally. t'is sad indeed. abstinence will likely do the trick. <br><br>[color:blue] -sean</font color=blue>

It's a difficult idea for we westerners to grasp but these folks (specially males) in these third world countries do not want to practice birth control. Tons of the stuff was being distributed then going to waste unused. It's a macho cultural thing. Hey look at me, I have fathered 2 dozen children!! A woman who is barren or is practicing birth control would be shunned and put aside for something better. We know this concept is wrong but try and convince these folks. I know someone who spent a great deal of their life trying to educate these people and gave up recently in disgust.<br><br><br><br>

Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.

All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.